Updated 13 October 2026. Portfolio figures are dated 30 June 2026; performance figures run through 12 October 2026.
VUG and VOOG can look almost interchangeable at first. Both are Vanguard ETFs, both focus on growth stocks, and both own familiar companies such as NVIDIA, Apple and Microsoft. But the amount each fund invests in those companies can be quite different.
VUG has the lower fee. VOOG follows the growth segment of the S&P 500. Neither is automatically the better investment: the choice depends on which portfolio you want and how much growth-stock risk you can accept.
VUG vs VOOG at a glance
| Feature | VUG | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund name | Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF | Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF |
| Index family | Morningstar US Large Cap Growth, formerly CRSP | S&P 500 Growth |
| Investment focus | US large-cap growth | Growth stocks within the S&P 500 |
| Management | Passive index tracking | Passive index tracking |
| Annual expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.07% |
| ETF inception | 26 January 2004 | 7 September 2010 |
| Number of stocks | 147 | 148 |
| ETF assets | US$223.25 billion | US$26.32 billion |
| Dividend schedule | Quarterly | Quarterly |
VUG’s name now includes “Morningstar”, following the 2026 rebranding of the CRSP index family. The ticker remains VUG. Its June factsheet still uses the earlier name.
Both funds concentrate on large companies. VUG should not be confused with a total-market fund: its growth focus leaves out much of the wider market. VOOG also differs from VOO, which tracks the full S&P 500 rather than just its growth segment.
What does the fee difference cost?
| Investment value | VUG: 0.03% a year | VOOG: 0.07% a year | VUG’s annual saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| US$10,000 | US$3 | US$7 | US$4 |
| US$50,000 | US$15 | US$35 | US$20 |
| US$100,000 | US$30 | US$70 | US$40 |
These expenses are taken from fund assets, rather than charged as a separate annual bill. Brokerage fees, currency conversion and the gap between buying and selling prices can add to your costs.
VUG’s lower fee is helpful, but the difference is only US$4 a year for every US$10,000 invested. Differences in holdings can have a much larger effect on returns.
Top 10 holdings: similar names, different weights
| Rank | VUG company | Weight | VOOG company | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVIDIA | 12.6% | NVIDIA | 13.6% |
| 2 | Apple | 11.7% | Alphabet | 10.6% |
| 3 | Alphabet | 10.3% | Microsoft | 7.8% |
| 4 | Microsoft | 7.6% | Apple | 6.0% |
| 5 | Amazon | 4.5% | Broadcom | 5.0% |
| 6 | Broadcom | 4.3% | Micron Technology | 3.7% |
| 7 | Meta Platforms | 3.4% | Meta Platforms | 3.5% |
| 8 | Tesla | 3.3% | Amazon | 3.5% |
| 9 | Eli Lilly | 2.8% | Eli Lilly | 2.7% |
| 10 | Advanced Micro Devices | 2.6% | Advanced Micro Devices | 2.7% |
| Top 10 total | — | 63.1% | — | 59.0% |
Both portfolios depend heavily on their largest positions. Buying both would increase the number of funds you own, but would still leave you exposed to many of the same companies.
A holding’s weight matters as much as its presence. If a stock performs unusually well or badly, a fund with more money in it feels a larger effect. That helps explain why two growth ETFs can produce different results.
Sector exposure: read the labels carefully
The following columns use different classification systems. VUG uses ICB; VOOG uses GICS. The rows show each fund’s own published categories, rather than equivalent sectors. Do not subtract the technology percentages to estimate the difference in underlying technology exposure.
| VUG sector (ICB) | Weight | VOOG sector (GICS) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 69.2% | Information Technology | 52.3% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 13.9% | Communication Services | 15.2% |
| Industrials | 7.6% | Financials | 8.7% |
| Health Care | 4.6% | Consumer Discretionary | 8.5% |
| Telecommunications | 1.5% | Industrials | 6.9% |
| Financials | 1.1% | Health Care | 6.2% |
| Real Estate | 1.0% | Consumer Staples | 1.1% |
| Basic Materials | 0.4% | Real Estate | 0.6% |
| Energy | 0.3% | Utilities | 0.4% |
| Consumer Staples | 0.2% | Materials | 0.3% |
| Utilities | 0.1% | Energy | 0.0% |
| Other | 0.0% | Other | 0.0% |
For a beginner, the holdings table is a clearer starting point for understanding the overlap. Both funds have substantial exposure to the businesses driving the large US growth-stock market. Neither offers broad global diversification.
Performance over matching periods
These figures compare the same ending date and include reinvested dividends. Multi-year figures are annualized: they show the compounded average yearly return, not the return in every individual year.
| Period ending 12 October 2026 | VUG | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 year to date | 13.07% | 17.74% |
| 1 year | 17.37% | 22.75% |
| 3 years, annualized | 25.64% | 28.05% |
| 5 years, annualized | 14.11% | 15.06% |
| 10 years, annualized | 18.33% | 18.23% |
VOOG led over the recent three- and five-year periods, while VUG was slightly ahead over ten years. The ranking changes with the time period, so recent leadership is a weak reason on its own to switch funds.
What would US$10,000 have grown to?
| Holding period ending 12 October 2026 | VUG | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| 3 years | US$19,834 | US$20,995 |
| 5 years | US$19,346 | US$20,170 |
| 10 years | US$53,799 | US$53,371 |
Each row starts with one US$10,000 investment at the beginning of that period, with no further contributions or withdrawals. These are historical illustrations, not forecasts. Personal taxes, brokerage charges and currency conversion costs are excluded. For a Singapore investor, movements in USD/SGD would also affect the result measured in Singapore dollars.
Calendar-year returns show the rough years too
| Year | VUG | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 40.25% | 33.35% |
| 2021 | 27.35% | 31.95% |
| 2022 | −33.16% | −29.48% |
| 2023 | 46.83% | 29.96% |
| 2024 | 32.69% | 35.89% |
| 2025 | 19.40% | 22.11% |
A strong long-term average can hide uncomfortable losses along the way. Both funds lost close to a third of their value in 2022. VUG then had the stronger rebound in 2023, but investors had to stay invested through the decline to experience it.
Growth investing also carries valuation risk: even a successful company’s shares can fall if its results fail to meet investors’ expectations. Money needed soon should not depend on a growth ETF recovering on a particular schedule.
Which growth ETF makes more sense?
| Your priority | What to consider |
|---|---|
| Lowest ongoing fund fee | VUG costs less. |
| Growth exposure specifically within the S&P 500 | VOOG follows that index segment. |
| Diversifying an existing growth-heavy portfolio | Review the overlapping holdings before adding either fund. |
| A broad core equity investment | Compare a broad-market fund before choosing a growth-only tilt. |
| Regular spending income | Quarterly dividends do not make either fund a dedicated income strategy. |
| Already own one of them | Consider trading costs, taxes where applicable and your reason for switching. |
For someone who has already decided to add a US large-cap growth allocation and mainly wants a low fee, VUG is a reasonable starting point. VOOG makes sense when its S&P 500 growth approach is the exposure you specifically want.
The bigger decision is how much of your portfolio to place in growth stocks. Choose an allocation you can hold through a difficult market, rather than assuming the latest winner will stay ahead.
For a broader comparison, see VUG vs VOO. Singapore-based investors should also consider fund domicile and tax treatment alongside fees; my S&P 500 ETF guide discusses those considerations.
This article is for general information and is not personal financial advice. Investments can lose value, and past performance does not guarantee future results.
